List Punch Item Final Approver Filter Options

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safety. The description adds value by detailing pagination, optional search, required parameters, and the API endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is about 4 sentences, front-loading the core action. It includes useful endpoint info but could be more concise (e.g., first sentence is slightly verbose). Efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description explains it returns a JSON array of filter values and mentions pagination/search. However, it does not describe the structure of each filter value, which is a minor gap for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description restates that company_id and project_id are required and mentions pagination/search, but adds little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns users assigned as final approvers on punch items, specifying the resource (final approvers) and verb (returns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_punch_item_assignee_filter_options by explicitly mentioning 'final approvers' and the endpoint path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use ('enumerate Punch List records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives. Implied usage but lacks exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.